Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
got some figures to back that up boyo?
how very divorced from reality.
Mind your manners small fry. It's common knowledge to anyone with a basic grounding in economics and history.got some figures to back that up boyo?
how very divorced from reality.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-an...2012861/print/
it doesn't matter how much you spend per-se, what matter is what proportion of GDP the Gov't elects to fritter away on public spending.
in 1997 public spending represented about 37% of GDP
in 2008 public spending represented about 43% of GDP
in 1979 i am willing to bet that it was closer to 43% than 37%
from your link:
http://ukpublicspending.co.uk/downch...ent%20of%20GDP
in 1997 public spending represented about 37% of GDP
in 2008 public spending represented about 43% of GDP
in 1979 i am willing to bet that it was closer to 43% than 37%
from your link:
http://ukpublicspending.co.uk/downch...ent%20of%20GDP
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Aye keep those working classes out of power.
I am all for empowerment of the working classes. Maggie is all for destroying their social fabric and their stake in society. Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc. Aye keep those working classes out of power.
Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
'Attila the Hen' made the British elite more of a closed shop than the traditional upper class had done for half a century.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.
Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
your first statement is made in an absolute vacuum that ignores the fact she was piecing back together a shattered economy, reduced public spending was an inevitability if britain was to get back on its feet.Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.
Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
............. which rather make the second statement baseless twaddle.
Originally Posted by :
I am all for empowerment of the working classes. Maggie is all for destroying their social fabric and their stake in society. Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.
Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
'Attila the Hen' made the British elite more of a closed shop than the traditional upper class had done for half a century.
That's very true. Allowing the working classes to purchase their council houses had the direct effect of keeping them in their place. I am all for empowerment of the working classes. Maggie is all for destroying their social fabric and their stake in society. Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.
Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
'Attila the Hen' made the British elite more of a closed shop than the traditional upper class had done for half a century.
My own sorry tale of moving upwards comes directly from this idiotic idea. If it wasn't for Hilda I'd still be living in 'social housing' as in dead dog estate in Manchester. Yes I hate the harriden for allowing me the social mobility so despised by our socialist overlords. They should burn the witch!
London School of Economics:
Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.
Originally Posted by :
Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility. Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable. Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity.
Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.
Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Steve Machin found that social mobility in Britain - the way in which someone's adult outcomes are related to their circumstances as a child - is lower than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. And while the gap in opportunities between the rich and poor is similar in Britain and the US, in the US it is at least static, while in Britain it is getting wider. A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.
Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.
Social mobility is highest in 'socialist' Scandinavia. Followed by semi-socialist continental Europe. Lowest in the US and the UK.Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility. Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable. Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity.
Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.
Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Steve Machin found that social mobility in Britain - the way in which someone's adult outcomes are related to their circumstances as a child - is lower than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. And while the gap in opportunities between the rich and poor is similar in Britain and the US, in the US it is at least static, while in Britain it is getting wider. A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.
Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
so whither the problem tbilicus?
if the reasoning of your own country is not good enough for you, what about the mewling admissions of the enemy, will that satisfy?
I guess so, from my knowledge however I was always taught that the Belgrano had no intention of military combat.. Guess I never really chose to read up on that area due to the fact anything related to an island full of sheep doesn't remotely interesting.so whither the problem tbilicus?
if the reasoning of your own country is not good enough for you, what about the mewling admissions of the enemy, will that satisfy?
I still have issues with the NI polices and my previous points raised however, as well as some domestic polices.. In fact pretty much throw that into anything towards the end of the Thatcher era, I think dear Maggie towards the end became a bit to obsessed with clinging onto power. It would be a fair point to say she didn't just want to keep the labour government out of power, she wanted to strangle and choke it to death..
Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School, again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School, again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.
Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School, again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School, again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.
agreed, i too am the product of grammar school, and sincerely wish that more people had the same opportunity.Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School, again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.
So what did Thatcher give Britain ?
Lower social mobility , lower growth in GDP , increases in government subsidies to business , asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced , prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted , a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be , the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state , the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
It raises the question , apart from the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway) is there anything positive about the stupidwoman .
Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .
Lower social mobility , lower growth in GDP , increases in government subsidies to business , asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced , prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted , a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be , the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state , the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
It raises the question , apart from the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway) is there anything positive about the stupidwoman .
Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .
Originally Posted by :
I have NO issue with what Carol Thatcher said
Yeah , that speaks volumes about youI have NO issue with what Carol Thatcher said
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So what did Thatcher give Britain ?
1. Lower social mobility ,
2. lower growth in GDP ,
3. increases in government subsidies to business ,
4. asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced ,
5. prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted ,
6. a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be ,
7. the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state ,
8. the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...
9. oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
10. the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway)
11. Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .
12. Yeah , that speaks volumes about you
1. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?So what did Thatcher give Britain ?
1. Lower social mobility ,
2. lower growth in GDP ,
3. increases in government subsidies to business ,
4. asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced ,
5. prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted ,
6. a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be ,
7. the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state ,
8. the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...
9. oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
10. the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway)
11. Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .
12. Yeah , that speaks volumes about you
2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.
3. as opposed to endlessly subsiding state-owned industries....................... if there are less state owned industries are we really surprised that more private business might have got subsidies?
4. its called letting go of failing state owned businesses that the nation had no business owning in the first place.
5. we differ on this, and argued it elsewhere. i believe the firmer stance of earlier gov't brought about a situation where the IRA were prepared to negotiate, rather than keeping the conflict on a slow-burn in perpetuity.
6. most of britains internal problems stem from poor/loose banking regulation, which is not something that can be laid at thatchers door.
7. you might want to specify those, but either way i'm kind of doubtful they compare in magnitude to that accomplished by nu-labour.
8. does it really, and while unfortunate if true if this really among the biggest problems facing britain?
9. crazy murdering dictators who provided vital assistance in a war we might not otherwise have won?
10. how did thatcher cause the falklands, really? by withdrawing the south atlantic patrol ship, or was it more because of 20 years of FCO procrastinating on the issue of talks with argentina regarding the future status of the falklands?
11. no argument there, it was a poor fight to pick with all the enemies she had accumulated by that point.
12. it was a harmless statement made in private, i will cheer her on just to cause politically correct people to cringe, what a worthless non-issue.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
London School of Economics:Social mobility is highest in 'socialist' Scandinavia. Followed by semi-socialist continental Europe. Lowest in the US and the UK.
Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.
A bit ot, but did you recently stumble upon this article in connection with that France is currrently seeming to get a "working poor" class (that hampers social mobility, or certainly not looking to be increasing it), particulary females? London School of Economics:Social mobility is highest in 'socialist' Scandinavia. Followed by semi-socialist continental Europe. Lowest in the US and the UK.
Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
That's very true. Allowing the working classes to purchase their council houses had the direct effect of keeping them in their place.
My own sorry tale of moving upwards comes directly from this idiotic idea. If it wasn't for Hilda I'd still be living in 'social housing' as in dead dog estate in Manchester. Yes I hate the harriden for allowing me the social mobility so despised by our socialist overlords. They should burn the witch!
Yeah but the sale of council houses was a one shot deal. It was very good for one generation, your generation, but subsequently the state of social housing in this country is desperate. Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.That's very true. Allowing the working classes to purchase their council houses had the direct effect of keeping them in their place.
My own sorry tale of moving upwards comes directly from this idiotic idea. If it wasn't for Hilda I'd still be living in 'social housing' as in dead dog estate in Manchester. Yes I hate the harriden for allowing me the social mobility so despised by our socialist overlords. They should burn the witch!
Maggie had more balls than all the Prime Ministers since, combined.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Yeah but the sale of council houses was a one shot deal. It was very good for one generation, your generation, but subsequently the state of social housing in this country is desperate. Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.
Well there's a tale. You'd have thunk that after 12 years of a Labour government, someone might have got around to having a go at sorting it out? Except we all know why, don't we?Yeah but the sale of council houses was a one shot deal. It was very good for one generation, your generation, but subsequently the state of social housing in this country is desperate. Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.
BTW Homelessness in the UK is one of my pet hates. It's shameful when we are such a rich country that people still sleep in the subway.A national disgrace.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.
If they are making huge profits, then new landlords would move into the marketplace and try to get some of that by providing more houses to rent. Unless, of course, regulations and other restrictions imposed by the government impede or prohibit the efficient building of new homes and apartments.Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.
Originally Posted by :
It's shameful when we are such a rich country that people still sleep in the subway.A national disgrace
There's always going to be a few people who aren't going to live in traditional homes. In the Seattle homeless population, there's some people who actually have homes, or relatives where they could stay, but they choose to live on the streets. Of course, that's not all of the homeless. But homelessness will never be fully done away with.It's shameful when we are such a rich country that people still sleep in the subway.A national disgrace
CR
I'm sorry, I'm not being personal.* Have you ever been homeless?
*Ok I'm being personal.
*Ok I'm being personal.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............
Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I'm sorry, I'm not being personal.* Have you ever been homeless?
*Ok I'm being personal.
Oh, me? Nope. No worries.I'm sorry, I'm not being personal.* Have you ever been homeless?
*Ok I'm being personal.
CR
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho:
Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?
Tish.Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho:
Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?
So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
If they are making huge profits, then new landlords would move into the marketplace and try to get some of that by providing more houses to rent. Unless, of course, regulations and other restrictions imposed by the government impede or prohibit the efficient building of new homes and apartments.
Limited housing stock old bean.If they are making huge profits, then new landlords would move into the marketplace and try to get some of that by providing more houses to rent. Unless, of course, regulations and other restrictions imposed by the government impede or prohibit the efficient building of new homes and apartments.
Bollox
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.
Yeh, they did work. You got assigned a house (obviously you paid for it, but it wasn't yours) that suited your needs, and you lived there. You were surrounded by people who were of a wide range of social standing (within lmits, obviously.). House prices had jack all to do with it, as there weren't houses to buy on the estates. Only when her Margesty came along and decided it would be a good idea to start flogging them off did the faecal matter hit the rotational cooling device. This happened because, as I said, the richer tennents obviously bought the houses on the nicest estates, leaving the poor with the shoddy ones, leading too... you guessed it: GHETTOS.So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.
'Tis true, and a widely accepted fact as well. Mrs. Thatcher did not know the meaning of social responsibility. Next time someone feels like arguing about the problems of benefit culture, remember the woman you have to thank. 
I'm glad you got out IA, but you were one of a small majority. The fact is that when the better off tenants left then the social problems shot up on the estates, leading to much greater inequality.
I'm glad you got out IA, but you were one of a small majority. The fact is that when the better off tenants left then the social problems shot up on the estates, leading to much greater inequality.
So, a large ghetto with lots of people in it became a smaller ghetto with less people in it? The really dyed in the wool ones who couldn't or wouldn't change?
Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.
I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.
Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.
I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.
Originally Posted by :
. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?
It was the changes in the tax burden which lead to declining social mobility , ass evidenced by those countries that appear bottom in the survey.. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?
Originally Posted by :
2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.
So you would like figures that showed growth was bigger than before she took office , then declined under her, then went into negative growth then had a short rally with the credit fuelled boom before declining again and then going back into negative growth before coming back to a figure that was on par with before she got in office ?2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.
Have you ever thought of looking them up ?
Originally Posted by :
3. as opposed to endlessly subsiding state-owned industries....................... if there are less state owned industries are we really surprised that more private business might have got subsidies?
Errrr...she sold the idea that the industries were getting too much subsidy which was a burden to the taxpayer , the same industries got more in subsidies after they were sold than they did before which is more of a burden to the taxpayer3. as opposed to endlessly subsiding state-owned industries....................... if there are less state owned industries are we really surprised that more private business might have got subsidies?
Originally Posted by :
4. its called letting go of failing state owned businesses that the nation had no business owning in the first place.
Selling valuable assets for a fraction of their real value is basic robbery.Its amazing how many foriegn state owned companies jumped at the chance at the British bargain basement sale.4. its called letting go of failing state owned businesses that the nation had no business owning in the first place.
Originally Posted by :
5. we differ on this, and argued it elsewhere
Yes and you still havn't the faintest idea what you are on about.5. we differ on this, and argued it elsewhere
Originally Posted by :
6. most of britains internal problems stem from poor/loose banking regulation, which is not something that can be laid at thatchers door.
Errrr ...deregulation of the financial sector not at Thatchers door ?????6. most of britains internal problems stem from poor/loose banking regulation, which is not something that can be laid at thatchers door.
Originally Posted by :
7. you might want to specify those, but either way i'm kind of doubtful they compare in magnitude to that accomplished by nu-labour.
All of Nu-labours(thatcherite) draconian laws are built on those introduced under thatcher.7. you might want to specify those, but either way i'm kind of doubtful they compare in magnitude to that accomplished by nu-labour.
Originally Posted by :
8. does it really, and while unfortunate if true if this really among the biggest problems facing britain?
Changing fundamental safeguards for the accountabilty of the government and its agencies to the people is a bloody big problem .8. does it really, and while unfortunate if true if this really among the biggest problems facing britain?
Originally Posted by :
9. crazy murdering dictators who provided vital assistance in a war we might not otherwise have won?
Crazy murdering dictators are crazy murdering dictators.9. crazy murdering dictators who provided vital assistance in a war we might not otherwise have won?
Originally Posted by :
10. how did thatcher cause the falklands, really? by withdrawing the south atlantic patrol ship, or was it more because of 20 years of FCO procrastinating on the issue of talks with argentina regarding the future status of the falklands?
With her policy of screwing the islanders before the invasion.10. how did thatcher cause the falklands, really? by withdrawing the south atlantic patrol ship, or was it more because of 20 years of FCO procrastinating on the issue of talks with argentina regarding the future status of the falklands?
Originally Posted by :
12. it was a harmless statement made in private
Yeah right12. it was a harmless statement made in private
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
So, a large ghetto with lots of people in it became a smaller ghetto with less people in it? The really dyed in the wool ones who couldn't or wouldn't change?
Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.
I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.
No, the ultra poor used to be spread about fairly evenly, which stopped when old Ball-Crusher decided to sell all of the nice houses, leaving the shitty houses for the ultra-poor. And seeing as crud houses tended to be on the same estates, this caused ghettos.So, a large ghetto with lots of people in it became a smaller ghetto with less people in it? The really dyed in the wool ones who couldn't or wouldn't change?
Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.
I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.
Basically, Thatcher is ultimately responsible for the deaths from ghetto culture in recent years, as it is her legacy which borne it.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
1. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?
Perhaps I was the exception, but from a generation significantly later than the much-vaunted 50s, for my Maths revision, I practiced on exam papers from the 50s. I got 100%, or as close to it as makes no difference, on every one. And when the real exams came, they weren't much different either.1. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?
Maybe it might be different for the Humanities, but in the subject where I could directly compare the educational standards of the 50s and those of my generation, there was no difference.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO